Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Rhodes (porn star)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Erik Rhodes (porn star)
Rhodes appears to fail the proposed WP:PORN BIO notability guidelines. He is exclusively signed with Falcon Studios, has dated another porn star who is redlinked, and has a relatively short filmography (less than a dozen films). Searches on IAFD and IMDb both result in zero relevant matches. As usual, comments are welcomed on my talk page if anyone feels I have made a mistake somewhere along the line with this nomination. RFerreira 00:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom no notability beyond someone shopping for pornography. Doc 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NN and WP:BIO/WP:LIVING. SynergeticMaggot 02:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PORN BIO, which means he fails WP:BIO. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN. by Porn Bio. Ugly, too.  -- GWO
 * There's no need to attack the guy's looks in AFD, Gareth. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep -- has starred in seven movies by Falcon Studios and its subdivision, Jocks, in the last year and a half. Falcon is the leading gay porn studio: it produces big budget, widely-distributed movies. It is not some backstreet operation with limited distribution. WP:PORN BIO is only proposed, and is still being developed. It was developed with straight porn in mind, and is not, in my opinion, well-suited to gay porn. The article is well-written, properly linked, and better referenced than 95% of Wikipedia articles. Zeromacnoo 12:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Zeromacnoo's comments, Rhodes is notable.  He has appeared on the covers of Men, Unzipped, and at least a third magazine.  This is more notability than many other performers.  Also, "[t]he person has [or does not have] an entry on a filmography database, such as IMDB, IAFD, et al." is non-criteria for erotic actors' notability on WP:PORN BIO  -- Dcflyer 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - insuficient to meet WP:PORN BIO requirements. Write another article when he's bottomed for a few more years - Peripitus (Talk) 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Zeromacnoo Antares33712 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Zeromacnoo PsYoP78 15:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Zeromacnoo. Carlossuarez46 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per Zeromacnoo, I think we should clarify WP:PORN BIO with qualificiations for G/L Porn notability. My thoughts only, though. Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Zeromacnoo has contacted several editors about this AFD. I'm not sure as to what his reasoning was (message cited recent edit history), but that may be a factor in concluding this discussion. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * concur that there should be concern over this type of spam about which there has been discussion. When someone goes to this length to bias a discussion by contacting others with whom there has not been prior contact just based on their edits, that is spam. Doc 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because AfD's are shortlived, it is wholly appropriate for someone to give notice to possibly interested editors. I thought WP was about inclusion; if someone's "spam" causes an editor to put in his/her $0.02 or it's British equivalent, so freaking what. You can contact whoever you feel to give input, too, it's a free country (free world). And your suggestion that my comment and position should be discounted or devalued because I was alerted to this by another editor is frankly kinda scary. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alerting other editors with whom you have dialogued is one thing, it is quite another to alert other editors with whom you have had no contact based on their edits alone. That's spam, pure and simple. Doc 01:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If people complain about spam, then someone may address it; to try to push your POV by discounting my (and anyone else who has been contacted) opinion has no basis in WP policy. Often alerts are posted on message boards for various wikiprojects about ongoing AfD's, do we stop the counting then? No. Why? because WP should want to hear everyone's opinion. If they are new or a sockpuppet they get discounted anyway. We don't care whether they are "regulars" or "lurkers".  Carlossuarez46 03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: If I have violated a policy or a guideline, please let me know where I can find it, becuase I do my best to behave according to the rules here. I have looked, and have not been able to find a Wikipedia policy against alerting other editors to an AfD. I did not try to persuade editors other than on this page to vote against the AfD. If there is no policy, then I don't know how I can be expected to conform to behaviour that certain editors think is appropriate. Zeromacnoo 04:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: In defense of Zeromacnoo's alerts, I personally appreciated this as it was a topic I was interested in, and I wouldn't have known about the discussion otherwise. Daydream believer2 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeromacnoo and others: I could have explained that better. There's an objection to "spamming" about discussion of deletion/policy/candidacy here at Wikipedia, because most of our processes work on the basis of consensus/rough consensus, the idea that most editors will come to some reasonable conclusion that is obvious, given the chance. Letting a certain subclass of editors know about a particular discussion skews those results and makes the final decision by the closing admin harder to determine if it's true or false consensus. Note that I didn't say "thse editors should be ignored", because a) that'd be assuming bad faith on Zero's part, and theirs, and b) I didn't look up what the reason was he contacted them (presumably, edit history with this or related gay porn articles). I just noticed that suddenly this discussion jumped from three commenters to six or seven, and wondered why. Does that help explain my message? -- nae'blis (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: In additional defense of Zermacnoo's alerts, I have been editing other gay pornographic pages. The decision of this AfD will set precedence for other gay porn star articles. I did not view his contact as spam, but relating to articles I have recently edited. PsYoP78 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely. I'm sorry if I sounded negative, I don't think spamming is necessarily right. I guess I'm just thankful to be informed about discussions I'd like to weigh in on. Daydream believer2 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also should have mentioned that the reason notices on WikiProject pages, for example, are not considered under the same bad light is that they are "opt-in" and available to anyone on any side of the discussion (for instance, I could watchlist WikiProject Porn stars and hear about any relevant discussions that people wanted to post there, whatever my personal interest/POV was about their notability. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Zeromacnoo's contact with other editors is no reason to close discussion. As for the topic at hand:  The reason why Erik Rhodes seems to have appeared in Falcon Studios videos only is that he has an exclusive contract with Falcon.  Falcon Studio (+ Jock and Mustang divisions) produces a limited number of films per year.  While I may disagree with Falcon's business model of concentrating mostly on white males, the  "Falcon Exclusive" is a status that Falcon grants to a very select few gay porn actors.  Rhodes has such a contract and most wannabe gay porn actor would kill for such a contract.  As for notability, go to the falcon website .  See that guy on the left?  That's Erik Rhodes.  Falcon, one of the world's leading gay porn studios, promotes its website by putting Rhodes on its homepage.  BTW, Rhodes (before signing on with Falcon) did appear in a video produced by Studio 2000, Flesh, in 2004.  And yes, Studio 2000 is one of Falcon's main competitor for top talent.  As for the counting bean criterion for notability: it's quite off.  Ryan Idol, one of the biggest gay (for pay) porn stars ever, appeared in around ten (10) non-compilation videos from 1990 to 1996.  The reason he did so few was that he thought doing so many would make him more of a has-been a lot sooner. He was right. Idol is not alone.  See Rex Chandler and Jeff Stryker. Mtparnas 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cloachland 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mtparnas and Dcflyer; WP:PORN BIO should be amended to include appearances on the covers of major magazines. Yamaguchi先生 02:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although I would usually agree with deletion, Mtparnas' comments about other notable pornstars is completely valid in this sense. Daydream believer2 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zeromacnoo and Mtparnas. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Zeromacnoo about the applicability of the proposed WP:PORN BIO to gay adult film performers and especially with Mtparnas's illustration of why counting the number of films for a particular performer isn't always a good indicator of that performer's notability.


 * IAFD and IMDB are not appropriate resources by which to measure notability for gay adult film performers. Case in point: Al Parker was one of the most prolific gay adult film performers of his time.


 * A search on IAFD for Al Parker returns a no match. The same search on IMDB  lists Parker as an actor in 12 films, a director of three, a producer of one, and one appearance as himself. Hardly representative of his actual work.


 * The video retailer tlavideo lists Al Parker as a performer in 32 gay adult films (some of which are compilations of scenes of other films), a director of 22, and a producer for 2. He is also listed as a model in two books, as the subject of another, and as appearing in a deck of playing cards of gay adult film performers. Al Parker’s career spanned 13 years; tlavideo's listing does not include all his work.


 * Erik Rhodes, having begun his work with one film in 2004, is listed in tlavideo as being in nine films. Five of them he made for Falcon Studios, three for Jocks Studios (a division of Falcon), and one for Studio 2000. Zeromacnoo and Mtparnas have addressed the concern regarding Erik's short filmography; which, given the average output of a gay adult film performer, is pretty impressive for roughly 2 years in the industry.


 * Being exclusively signed with Falcon Studios is an excellent indicator of notability in terms of gay adult film performers, as Falcon is one of the largest studios (if not the largest studio) currently producing gay adult films. Falcon is also one of the oldest surviving studios to do so and is a highly-recognized brand.


 * Dating someone who isn’t notable (i.e., redlined) doesn’t lessen an individual’s notability.


 * As for the comments, I appreciate that Zeromacnoo noticed my fledgling editing efforts and thought to inform me of this discussion - it's a topic in which I have a great deal of interest. I would hope that being new to a forum doesn't automatically discount one's contributions to it. Chidom 08:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Zeromacnoo Spheroide 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep is more notable than most gay porn stars. There is an active discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) about what the relevant criteria should be but he looks to meet them.  This can be considered to meet criterion 8 of WP:PORN BIO as currently written.  Note that IAFD has basically no coverage of gay porn.  Eluchil404 18:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.